When an individual falsely accused of misconduct in the workplace by a recalcitrant management intent on reprisal, there is an incredible stress on them. False accusations in the workplace are typically raised by individuals who are attempting to cover up their own misconduct, so there needs to be a fair and equitable process to address these allegations in a timely fashion.

The first task is to prevent termination, when an individual has been denied procedural fairness, this becomes somewhat difficult, but still possible. This is especially true if they have suspended and had their ICT access revoked. This would make it difficult to present evidence to defend themselves, this does not meet the criteria of procedural fairness. This would tend to indicate arbitrary and capricious acts are being created to manufacture misconduct. If victimisation is too overt, then the managers expose themselves to personal liability, sometimes these people cannot hide behind job titles and will be held accountable.

Imagine their panic if they had engaged in safety abuses and it was documented, not a great reason for attempting disciplinary action. That might make some senior managers very nervous, that might take some interesting explaining to the safety regulator. Imagine if the person held a safety representative role, was a previous safety representative or had indicated they were seeking to become a safety representative. There are specific legal protections for Health and Safety Representatives to prevent them from being targeted for potential misconduct. What the regulator must do is ensure temporal proximity protects Health and Safety Representatives from manufactured misconduct from unscrupulous employers.